TRANSPORT groups and a private lawyer yesterday insisted that the Non-Contact Apprehension Program (NCAP) being implemented by several local government units in Metro Manila and the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority is unconstitutional.
The Office of the Solicitor General countered that it is in accordance with the law while helping solve the worsening traffic situation in the metropolis.
The differing positions — by Kilusan sa Pagbabago ng Industriya ng Transportasyon Inc., Pasang Masda, Alliance of Concerned Transport Operators, Altodap, Philippine National Taxi Operators and private lawyer Juman Paa — and the respondents (LGUs, MMDA and Land Transportation Office) were aired during oral arguments heard by the Supreme Court.
Arguing for the transport groups, lawyer Greg Pua Jr. told the SC that local ordinances calling for the implementation of the NCAP were issued with grave abuse of discretion as these contravenes the 1987 Constitution and existing laws.
“While the assailed ordinances were purportedly issued pursuant to the police power of the respondents, the same are invalid exercise of police power since this violates the Constitution, the Land Transportation Office-Traffic Code, the Data Privacy Act, for being oppressive, disadvantageous and unreasonable,” Pua said, adding the excessive fines and penalties imposed under NCAP warrants the declaration of its invalidity.
Last august, the SC issued a temporary restraining order against the implementation of the NCAP by the local government units of Manila, Muntinlupa, Quezon city, Paranaque and Valenzuela.
The SC later clarified that the injunction also covers a similar program being enforced by the MMDA.
The NCAP utilizes CCTV and digital cameras to identify and apprehend traffic violators through videos and images captured of their violation. Once a violation is detected, the LGU concerned issues traffic citation tickets and mail them directly to the vehicle’s registered owners.
Non-payment of fines within seven days means their vehicles will not be accommodated for re-registration.
Pua told the magistrates headed by Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo that despite the rosy statements of the LGUs and the MMDA touting the NCAP, the said scheme is “oppressive, unreasonable and disadvantageous to motorists.
“How can NCAP accomplish its goals when it targets the registered owner of the vehicle and not the actual driver,’” he said, noting that vehicle owners such as taxi operators bear the brunt of paying the hefty fines.
Paa also questioned why fines under the NCAP are higher compared to other traffic violation measures, a fact that he said contravened the purpose of imposing fines. He explained that fines are imposed for regulatory purposes, not for income generation.
Lawyer Lorman Arugay, arguing for Philippine National Taxi Operators, said the NCAP violates separation of powers because traffic boards exclusively rule on traffic violations, depriving courts of power.
But Solicitor General Menardo Guevarra dismissed the concerns raised by the petitioners, saying “there is a lack of legal mooring of all these legal challenges.”
